|
 n
the latest issue of The
American Prospect, Paul Begala, erstwhile Clinton courtier
and perpetual political attack dog, writes that since "the
September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, it is
enlightening to examine who has been patriotic and who has been
partisan." Needless to say, Begala concludes that "the
Democrats have stood behind their commander in chief, whatever their
doubts about his fitness for office or how he attained it."
He grudgingly admits that yes, "most Republicans, too, have
set aside their partisan fervor." But — here comes the
kicker — "there have been cracks in the patriotic veneer,
ugly moments in which vicious partisanship has supplanted patriotism.
And every one of them has come from the right."
The embarrassing
myopia of this contention is neatly matched by Begala's embarrassing
lack of supporting evidence. He cites, of course, the ACLU-bashing,
abortionist-blaming remarks of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, which would
be fair enough (Falwell's comments made every sensible conservative
wince) if Begala did not proceed to make the outrageous claim that
"I have yet to hear any of the judgmental blow-hards of the
right distance themselves from Falwell." This is, needless
to say, arrant nonsense: A quick search of NRO alone turns up a
half-dozen condemnations of the Falwell tirade, from distinguished
"judgmental blow-hards" like Ramesh
Ponnuru and William
F. Buckley Jr. But then, perhaps NRO isn't high on the reading
list for a former Clintonista.
After the Falwell
example, meanwhile, the wheels really come off Begala's argument.
He trundles down to South Carolina to find an attack ad on a Democratic
congressman that he deems "inappropriate," quotes Dick
Armey and Grover Norquist (each criticizing the Dems for trying
to use wartime as an excuse for new federal programs), and then
goes after Rush Limbaugh, the "official gasbag of the kook
right" (yeah, Begala's just overflowing with bipartisan spirit),
for having the temerity to suggest that Bill Clinton might bear
a smidgen of responsibility for the neglecting the war on terrorism
prior to September 11. Never mind that similar criticisms have been
made by countless observers Left and Right in the last month —
for Begala, riding to the defense of his beleaguered ex-boss, anyone
who attacks Bill Clinton must be putting "partisanship
ahead of patriotism."
And that's
it: Falwell's blitherings, an obscure political ad, two brief quotes
from Armey and Norquist, and a Rush Limbaugh editorial. These, for
Begala, add up to proof that Republicans, ever "results-oriented"
(see "Florida 2000 and the ... theft of the election,"
he sneers), have cast aside the "long-standing American-tradition
of eschewing partisanship when American lives are in danger."
There is, needless
to say, no mention in Begala's "nonpartisan" analysis
of any of the left-wing "thinkers" and literati who have
taken turns denouncing America in general and Republicans in particular
since September 11 — no Susan
Sontag, no Barbara
Kingsolver, no Noam Chomsky or Edward Said. And where, one wonders,
is activist Michael Moore, he of the post-massacre complaint that
"if someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so
by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him!" (No
partisanship here, sir — just us chickens!) And what about
Barbara "the Congresswoman from the Taliban" Lee, the
only representative to vote against a resolution authorizing the
use of military force? Ms. Lee, last time we checked, was a Democrat
from California — are you listening, Mr. Begala?
|
